Should federal funds designed to support the education of low-income students be diverted to paying down state pension debts?

3 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve-oh
4 years ago

Gracious…..makes me gag reading about the all-out mess when the Federal Govt gets involved with local funding for what state and locals should be paying for completely. And the article doesn’t describe it well. Doesn’t say if the federal govt just pays a portion of new teacher pay or all of the 50,000. And does it go on forever? If it did, then her logic makes no sense. So what if Chicago would have to pay 36%, $18,000 for pension……if they didn’t have to pay the 50k !! And why do poverty areas in Chicago need MORE teachers ?! I’d… Read more »

Steve-oh
4 years ago
Reply to  Steve-oh

And regular teacher pensions around the state (except Chicago) have the locals only paying 0.58% of payroll to fund the teacher pensions and the “state” pays the rest?? What’s the purpose, derivation and logic of 0.58% ? It may as well be zero if it’s not something substantial like 10% or 20%. Jeezus, the idiots that made the mess of complexity should be ashamed of themselves, but of course they’re not.

nixit71
4 years ago
Reply to  Steve-oh

That 0.58% was a result of legislation (40 ILCS 5/16-158) passed in 1998 that increased the creditable service years formula from 1.67 to 2.2 for every year worked. This was another one of those benefit increases where the beneficiaries exchanged a minor increase in pension contributions (from 8% to 9%) in exchange for a host of benefits that cost much more than that. Basically another giveaway. From the archives… Because implementation of the 2.2 retirement formula meant that TRS would pay higher benefits to annuitants, the legislation had to provide additional funding sources. As a result, the member contribution rate… Read more »